What is the Biblical view of hell?

[otseng]

The concept of Hell is one of the many unmarketable, embarrassingly unbelievable religious concepts that has been recently swept under the altar in the severely diluted quasi-belief system that passes for Christianity in certain circles.

In fact, I think this is why Christianity invented eternal punishment in hell. They started to realize that just plain dying wouldn't be compelling. So instead they invented the concept of "Everlasting Punishment" for those who refuse to comply.

Questions for debate:
What is the Biblical view of hell?
What concepts do we have of hell that are not in the Bible?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 234 by onewithhim]

Many people are satisfied with the erroneous man-made ideas of a person's conscious spirit living on after death, some to live in agony in a fire. Even though it is not what the Bible teaches, in its original languages.

But many in this thread have pointed out exactly where one gets that from the Bible. In fact, as I pointed out there is ample evidence that the early Church thought exactly that and taught exactly that. It is the JW position that requires some creative editing of the text to make the Bible conform to their unbiblical non existence of hell theory. Remind me again where Charles Russell came from? Who gave him authority to create his Watchtower papers which were his personal interpretation of the Bible and which was contrary to what Christ’s established Church says?

Men have corrupted large parts of the Bible and all it takes is some research to figure out just what has been corrupted.

Amen. Maybe this is why Christ said to Peter (the first Pope), “He who hears you, hears me�. Perhaps to prevent false prophets that we were warned about from popping up and claiming they have the truth. The existence of hell was a Christian doctrine from the beginning. It is the JW’s who want to somehow now claim the first Church got it wrong. But you can put forth no evidence as to why one should accept Russell’s view. How can you know he got it right?

The Church teaches alot of things that people have a hard time understanding/accepting. We saw this from the beginning with Jesus telling people unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood, they have no life in them. Christians can never fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. None of us can fully wrap our head around what the after life will be like. But it is all part of our trust and faith and hope in our Lord. We believe because He has revealed it to us. We don't get to say, No, that isn't how I would do it. Or no, that sounds too harsh, or no, I think it should be this way. Let us not reduce God to our limited version of Him. Let us not try to change Him for we know not what we are doing.

[PinSeeker]

As I said.....we have to just agree to disagree.

Well, I could have told you that before we got started. Not that the discussion was/is not worth having, but I knew very well what the outcome would be. And you probably did, too.

After all the discussion and proving that "hell" is merely the common GRAVE of all mankind, you won't concede that we have a point.

Saying something is proved does not make it so. An error oft made is forming beliefs and then "shaping" Scripture to support it. When that is done, "proof" becomes a foregone conclusion.

Additionally, I'll certainly acknowledge your "point," but point out that it's altogether in error. The Bible absolutely does not teach that death is cessation of existence. Annihilationism is totally abiblical.

I won't respond to your posts from henceforth.

Well, that's unfortunate. But I hope you don't think that offends me or hurts me in any way...

It's very difficult trying to discuss something with someone who ignores a person's argument.

Do as you will. I don't ignore anyone, as that would be at best disrespectful, and at worst sinful. But I reserve the right to call 'wrong' wrong.

I wish you grace and peace. The Lord make His face to shine upon you and give you peace.

[William]

Edit to remove post - decided to create a new Thread instead.

[William]

@112

Imprecise Interrupt: Targum Isaiah makes this hint explicit. It is not the bodies, it says, that will be punished. The second death is the souls burning in the burning type of hell usually envisioned by that word. But another puzzling feature is the righteous saying they have seen enough. When they say that, does that mean they stop watching but the punishment goes on forever? Or does the punishment end when the righteous say there has been enough of that? It would be unusual for anyone but God making such a decision, so the implication seems to be eternal punishment of the souls of the wicked.

William: I do not find the idea of GOD reasoning with the righteous as unusual.

[otseng]

For purposes of debate, we need to have agreed upon terms that participants would know exactly what is being referred to.

Not a problem,.

• Shall we agree that every time we use the word SHEOL we are refering without exception to the symbolic common grave of mankind where all humans (good or bad) go when they die and where those individuals are a state of complete and absolute unconsciousness.
  
  And for physical DEATH we are referring to the state of complete and utter non-existence, the exact and absolute opposite of life.
  
  And for SOUL let's stick to the Hebrew and use NEPHESH (we can add soul in brackets for clarity) and agree that we are always without exception referring to the flesh and blood physical human or animal that is subject to DEATH (see above for death above definition).

Agreed?

I still don't see what your term for "the immaterial animated lifesource/breath of life that comes from God" would be.

We can discuss the definitions of other terms after this is clarified.

[otseng]

I would say that the anger and despair is something that wicked people experience BEFORE they die. It is not something that occurs after they are dead.

"The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all....There is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave [Sheol], where you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10)

But in the context of the parables where there is a reference to weeping and gnashing of teeth, it is in the context of judgment. Will people be judged to enter eternal life while they are still alive?

[otseng]

Saying something is proved does not make it so. An error oft made is forming beliefs and then "shaping" Scripture to support it. When that is done, "proof" becomes a foregone conclusion.

This is something we need to try to avoid, but it can be very difficult. I've tried to be open minded about this topic and approach it by looking at all the evidence and different arguments for all the positions.

Additionally, I'll certainly acknowledge your "point," but point out that it's altogether in error. The Bible absolutely does not teach that death is cessation of existence. Annihilationism is totally abiblical.

I would not say annihilationism is "totally abiblical". But, like all interpretations of hell, I believe there are various interpretions of hell depending on what is interpreted to be literal or figurative. Annihilationism tends to view references to death literally, but everything that leads to an afterlife as figurative. Whereas people who believe in eternal torment in hell will view the parables of Jesus and the book of Revelation more literally.

So, one question is how should we decide to interpret something literally or figuratively? Well, that's a whole topic of debate in itself.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco,

People are the ones coming up with all these horrible torments (burn alive forever, scream in pain and agony for all eternity, etc). Just look at the tortures that man has come up with to literally torture their fellow man. That does not come from God!

I completely agree with you here, Tam, but I do not see that the Bible does.

Why not? If you can see that meaning, and I can see that meaning, why not consider the possibility that this is all that was meant to begin with?

Perhaps you are looking at the Bible with the glasses (and bias) that the RCC gave you?

I do not know how to explain how people come to the conclusion of a burning hellfire after being presented with all the evidence to the contrary. The meaning of the words translated as 'hell', the beliefs of Israel about Sheol (also translated as hades or hell) - and the utter lack of belief in Sheol being a place of torment and torture. As has been stated, Job longed to go there; Jacob expected to go there, etc. The very fact that no one made a fuss when Christ supposedly introduced this new and terrifying teaching might also be a hint to people that He never taught it.

There is also no point to it - it is not necessary; why in the world would love create and maintain such a place; there is no logic to it - to think that the creation who inherits eternal life is going to live for all eternity in bliss, right alongside people being tortured and tormented for all eternity? There is no evidence that Israel ever believed in this (or that God taught it to them). And each of the verses or parables that people use to try and defend this doctrine are symbolic and/or interpreted.


So why do people ignore all of the evidence in order to keep believing in and pushing the 'traditional doctrine of hell'. Other than tradition and FEAR?

I accept that some people, driven to suicide, experience awful regret. I accept your suggestion that remorse is painful and might make some wish they had never been born. But there are too many references to sulphurous pits of torment to ignore them.

Please list them.

Perhaps God has no plans to torture - but those who wrote about him certainly thought he does.

A - I think the example of Judas showed that at least he did not believe that. Which indicates that Christ did not teach it. Though I am sure there are other reasons (including people being mentally unhealthy)... many people tend to take their lives in order to end their suffering- not to race toward even greater suffering.

B - If the people who wrote about God thought he intended to do that, there should probably have been some evidence or outrage or even questioning about this new and terrifying teaching which never existed in the OT or among Israel before now.


But there is none of that.

Go well

Thank you Marco, and peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

So, they are not the same thing, and it would benefit each of us to understand the difference.

Spirit, soul, principle of life - these are separate from the body but included in a person's life.

Agreed


So... what (biblically) is


1) SOUL (nephesh)

2) SPIRIT (ruah)

.... and while we're at it...

3) the principle of LIFE

4) (physical) DEATH


From what I can see nobody but Jehovah's Witnesses has actually presented any biblical definitions/conclusions in this thread. I would welcome others.

I asked ttruscot here, and await his response
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 958#970958

I don't believe otseng is incljned to present any specific definitions of what the above are
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 948#970948

PinSeeker did offer his conclusions on HELL which I responded to in this link here
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 062#971062

JW




RELATED POSTS

Are the BODY and PERSON regarded as two seperate entities in scripture?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 919#970919

Is a SOUL and a(the) SPIRIT the same thing in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 029#971029

What happens to a person's SPIRIT when they die?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 033#971033

[marco]

[Replying to post 240 by JehovahsWitness]

Thank you for your general lesson on Christ's use of figurative language. I'm sure some will have learned something from it. As a reply to what I had posted it is more puzzling than relevant.

I know the story uses symbolic language. It is a question of interpreting what those symbols mean. It is wrong to make the story fit our theology. The test that an interpretation is wrong is if the parable becomes close to meaningless, and the ingredients of the story of little weight. Yes, death can be used symbolically, and often is. So can winter.

As with other parables there is a moral at the end: selfishmess will be punished; kindness will find its reward. It is a common theme. Your explanation disregards the chosen setting. There's no problem separating literal and figurative in Christ's well-constructed parables.


The interpretation that makes sense and communicates Christ's geeneral lessons is that after death the injured will find comfort in the figuratibe "bosom of Abraham",however we want to interpret that. A just God will punish wickedness and the punishment will be severe. Figurative death? Yes, we can say that we have killed our kind self by being cruel - but I think Christ was clever enough to use the proper vehicle for this wisdom. It is always a nuisance when Jesus appeaars to contradict our views. But then - they might just be wrong.